Anthropocentrism vs. Nonanthropocentrism: Why Should We Care?

Environmental Values 16 (May):169-186 (2007)
Authors
Katie McShane
Colorado State University
Abstract
Many recent critical discussions of anthropocentrism have focused on Bryan Norton's 'convergence hypothesis': the claim that both anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric ethics will recommend the same environmentally responsible behaviours and policies. I argue that even if we grant the truth of Norton's convergence hypothesis, there are still good reasons to worry about anthropocentric ethics. Ethics legitimately raises questions about how to feel, not just about which actions to take or which policies to adopt. From the point of view of norms for feeling, anthropocentrism has very different practical implications from nonanthropocentrism; it undermines some of the common attitudes - love, respect, awe - that people think it appropriate to take toward the natural world
Keywords value  environment  ethics  anthropocentrism  Bryan Norton
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.3197/096327107780474555
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,932
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

On Virtue Ethics.Rosalind Hursthouse - 1999 - Oxford University Press.

View all 56 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Anthropocentric Indirect Arguments for Environmental Protection.Kevin C. Elliott - 2014 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 17 (3):243-260.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-08-11

Total downloads
59 ( #106,626 of 2,272,772 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #375,954 of 2,272,772 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature